• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans move to halt ObamaCare 'bailout' for angry unions

AlabamaPaul said:
Again, the amendment that was included inn the bill was intended to subject Congress to the same standards as they were subjecting every other individual in the country. You can slice, dice, chop, etc, but it doesn't change the intent of the amendment...
Click to expand...


You are correct. Their coverage was no better than that offered to the federal workforce, but either Dems didn't read the fine print or didn't understand how it would play. Good evening, AP.:mrgreen:
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Again, the amendment that was included inn the bill was intended to subject Congress to the same standards as they were subjecting every other individual in the country. You can slice, dice, chop, etc, but it doesn't change the intent of the amendment...
Click to expand...

Except that provision is completely different from the standards that apply to everyone else in the country.

No one is required to give up their employer-sponsored benefits to shop in an exchange--the law actually goes in the opposite direction and institutes an employer mandate to maintain the employer-based system.

Exchanges are supposed to be for the minority of people who don't have the option of getting coverage through their job (with some employers allowed to take their employees into the exchanges if they wish). In that case, it gives them new options to shop in a competitive, consumer-friendly marketplace with the possibility of financial assistance depending on their income.

Congress (and their staffs) are the only people in the country singled out in the law and explicitly required to give up their current plans and start shopping in an exchange. But, as I said, the law doesn't phrase it as them losing their employer benefit and having to go obtain coverage on their own, their arrangement is described as being made available by their employer with respect to their service. In other words, the implication is that they have to choose from the same plans available to people without employer coverage, not that they're supposed to take a pay cut by losing the health benefit component of their compensation package.
 
Jack Hays said:
You are correct. Their coverage was no better than that offered to the federal workforce, but either Dems didn't read the fine print or didn't understand how it would play. Good evening, AP.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Good evening 2m. This employer subsidy excuse being bantered about is just that, an excuse for not subjecting them to the law as is every other individual without health insurance...
 
Greenbeard said:
Except that provision is completely different from the standards that apply to everyone else in the country.

No one is required to give up their employer-sponsored benefits to shop in an exchange--the law actually goes in the opposite direction and institutes an employer mandate to maintain the employer-based system.

Exchanges are supposed to be for the minority of people who don't have the option of getting coverage through their job (with some employers allowed to take their employees into the exchanges if they wish). In that case, it gives them new options to shop in a competitive, consumer-friendly marketplace with the possibility of financial assistance depending on their income.

Congress (and their staffs) are the only people in the country singled out in the law and explicitly required to give up their current plans and start shopping in an exchange. But, as I said, the law doesn't phrase it as them losing their employer benefit and having to go obtain coverage on their own, their arrangement is described as being made available by their employer with respect to their service. In other words, the implication is that they have to choose from the same plans available to people without employer coverage, not that they're supposed to take a pay cut by losing the health benefit component of their compensation package.
Click to expand...

Still slicing and dicing...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Still slicing and dicing...
Click to expand...

All right, if the actual words don't matter to you as much as the intent, then ask the amendment's author what his intent was:

The provision in question stemmed from an amendment Grassley authored and for which he won Finance Committee approval in September 2009. The Grassley amendment said that members of Congress and their staff must get their health insurance coverage from the exchanges that would be established in the health care overhaul. This congressional coverage initiative built on many years of work by Senator Grassley to have Congress live under the laws it passes for the rest of the country. In 1995, legislation authored by Grassley to apply 12 civil rights, labor and employment laws to Congress for the first time.

The story in today’s New York Times reports that TV commercials being run on behalf of Democratic candidates for Congress assert that members of Congress who voted to repeal the 2010 health care law have voted to give themselves taxpayer-funded health care for life.” Senator Grassley said his provision, even in the final form it took in the law that was enacted makes no changes to the employer contribution to federal employee health care coverage and no changes to federal retiree health care.
Click to expand...

No intent to strip members of Congress or their staffs of their employer contribution.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Good evening 2m. This employer subsidy excuse being bantered about is just that, an excuse for not subjecting them to the law as is every other individual without health insurance...
Click to expand...

But didn't BHO promise that if you like your health insurance you can keep it?:lamo
 
Bottom line ... something as massive as the ACA was never intended to be fair to all but rather to reward & cement in place the dependency of certain constituencies and what couldn't be implemented in the law would be implemented via regulation.

So for the Unions to end up suffering from the ACA is something I'll believe when I see it.
 
bubbabgone said:
Bottom line ... something as massive as the ACA was never intended to be fair to all but rather to reward & cement in place the dependency of certain constituencies and what couldn't be implemented in the law would be implemented via regulation.

So for the Unions to end up suffering from the ACA is something I'll believe when I see it.
Click to expand...

They'll all use the exchanges, I guess, but how to keep them happy about it will be the question. They are being very vocal about it now, though, and the Dems won't like losing them, so we'll see. :eek:
 
AlabamaPaul said:
There are millions that might disagree today...
Click to expand...

Most of the populace haven't even begun to look into it yet, according to articles I have read. How loud is the sound of millions of outraged people all yelling at the same time about the cost, not getting to keep their doctor, and a variety of other unhappy complaints? :shock:
 
polgara said:
They'll all use the exchanges, I guess, but how to keep them happy about it will be the question. They are being very vocal about it now, though, and the Dems won't like losing them, so we'll see. :eek:
Click to expand...

For that to actually happen is an imponderable.
 
So...question:

Am I to understand from the title of this thread Republicans are trying to force Obamacare on people?
 
Slyfox696 said:
So...question:

Am I to understand from the title of this thread Republicans are trying to force Obamacare on people?
Click to expand...

In a manner of speaking, yes. Unions supported Obamacare but now want to be exempt from its provisions. Repubs are encouraging them to take pride in, and ownership of, their creation. Reminds me of the great W.T. Sherman quote: "War is the remedy our enemies have chosen, and I say give it to them.":peace
 
Jack Hays said:
In a manner of speaking, yes. Unions supported Obamacare but now want to be exempt from its provisions. Repubs are encouraging them to take pride in, and ownership of, their creation. Reminds me of the great W.T. Sherman quote: "War is the remedy our enemies have chosen, and I say give it to them.":peace
Click to expand...

So repeal, except for people you don't like?
 
Jack Hays said:
But didn't BHO promise that if you like your health insurance you can keep it?:lamo
Click to expand...
And we all know, now, that a BHO promise is worth less than used toilet paper... :(
 
rocket88 said:
So repeal, except for people you don't like?
Click to expand...

That seems to be the intent of the waivers granted to the donors, bundlers, bunglers and other friends of the administration.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
You may not like the source, but here is a good history of this...

http://http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/14023-congressional-staff-to-feel-obamacare-pain-in-2014
Click to expand...

Your source agrees with me...

Which brings us to the second major drafting flaw in Section 1312: They unintentionally made it impossible for the government to contribute to the staff’s premium cost. Ezra Klein at Wonkblog dug up the actual description of the Grassley amendment (see page 17), evidencing the intent that the same employer contribution would apply to ObamaCare exchange coverage:

“This amendment would require that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, beginning in 2013, Members of Congress and Congressional staff must use their employer contribution (adjusted for age rating) to purchase coverage through a state-based exchange, rather than using the traditional selection of plans offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP).”

CRS came to the same conclusion that Section 1312 was intended to retain the 72% employer contribution to the premium.
Click to expand...

There it is in black and white. They never intended for congress to lose their employer contribution to their premiums.

Now lets see if you'll actually admit it this time...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom